..would not preclude women from voicing an honest opinion, and of course would not see men politically bound to saying what they don't think.

Take this video as an example:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8490930

I mean, what a pathetic wretch he is.
Is that supposed to be "romantic" or something?

Let's face it, that poor guy is controlled by societal measures and has not been granted any respect at all to his innate self. He is a pathetic slave.

It's pretty horrible to see such things, ..liked a caged compressed animal who has been beaten into submission, that poor guy is probably forever doomed as a natural human being. All hope of being a free man is lost within that pathetic hopeless beggar-clip.i

Yep, I agree.

That was just the edited version. The full clip is argghhhh...pukeworthy

What have we allowed ourselves to become?

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 12:21am:

..would not preclude women from voicing an honest opinion, and of course would not see men politically bound to saying what they don't think. Take this video as an example: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8490930 I mean, what a pathetic wretch he is. Is that supposed to be "romantic" or something? Let's face it, that poor guy is controlled by societal measures and has not been granted any respect at all to his innate self. He is a pathetic slave. It's pretty horrible to see such things, ..liked a caged compressed animal who has been beaten into submission, that poor guy is probably forever doomed as a natural human being. All hope of being a free man is lost within that pathetic hopeless beggar-clip.

From my perspective, the clip is tragic and so is the guy in it.

He appears to be suffering from low self esteem issues. For all we know, he's probably a nice guy who deserves a more fulfilling relationship than the one he is desperately trying to salvage.

Having said that, we don't always know the nitty gritty of such private matters.

For all we know, the woman in this situation could be genuinely unhappy with the relationship she's in on a/c of of some issues affecting her husband and has decided to move on with someone else.

I don't understand or agree with this though :

"..that poor guy is controlled by societal measures."

Quote:

For all we know, the woman in this situation could be genuinely unhappy with the relationship she's in on a/c of of some issues affecting her husband and has decided to move on.

Then why did she decide to go back to him?

Obviously she now has a free ticket to squeeze balls and suck dix at her royal pleasure.

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 12:39am:

Quote: For all we know, the woman in this situation could be genuinely unhappy with the relationship she's in on a/c of of some issues affecting her husband and has decided to move on. Then why did she decide to go back to him? Obviously she now has a free ticket to squeeze balls and suck dix at her royal pleasure.

Exactly.

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 12:39am:

Quote: For all we know, the woman in this situation could be genuinely unhappy with the relationship she's in on a/c of of some issues affecting her husband and has decided to move on without him. Then why did she decide to go back to him? Obviously she now has a free ticket to squeeze balls and suck dix at her royal pleasure.

There's always a level of confusion and uncertainty for both partners when a relationship encounters trouble and/or is coming to an end.

I don't know about any free tickets though. No one wins when a marriage breaks down ( except for the lawyers involved ).

Quote:

I don't know about any free tickets though. No one wins when a marriage breaks down ( except for the lawyers involved ).

Crapola!!
The woman who has generally never worked a hard day in her life takes half of the man's toil. QED.

She then upgrades, and has normally already found her upgrade before ending the marriage.

Capitalism has constructed it this way because it is generally the man who will do the bulk of the work for the economy.

..the man is then forced back to work until his "happy" retirement age of 67, when he is then generally lucky to be alive, let alone be able to enjoy the fruits of his capitalistic toil.
In essence, it's a total life of slavery, without choice, without option for escape.

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 12:57am:

Quote: I don't know about any free tickets though. No one wins when a marriage breaks down ( except for the lawyers involved ). Crapola!! The woman who has generally never worked a hard day in her life takes half of the man's toil. QED. She then upgrades, and has normally already found her upgrade before ending the marriage. Capitalism has constructed it this way because it is generally the man who will do the bulk of the work for the economy. ..the man is then forced back to work until his "happy" retirement age of 67, when he is then generally lucky to be alive, let alone be able to enjoy the fruits of his capitalistic toil.

You appear to be speaking from some particular, antiquated anecdotal perspective.

These days, the contributions of BOTH parties just before entering the marriage as well as ALL contributions made during the marriage are carefully considered and weighed up. Future responsibilities as regards children and the cost of their care are also divided equally these days. Exceptional circumstances exist, but that's the case with any legal matter.

I don't believe that to be true. I think that you must be brainwashed to think of that as being the true case.


The "true case" is that men were/are/will be the primary drivers of the economy and are controlled as such.

Earlier death, later retirement age..it's obvious that men are primarily the chosen plebs to drive the economy.

MissFixItOrElse wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:03am:

You appear to be speaking from some particular, antiquated anecdotal perspective. These days, the contributions of BOTH parties just before entering the marriage as well as ALL contributions made during the marriage are carefully considered and weighed up. Future responsibilities as regards children and the cost of their care are also divided equally these days. Exceptional circumstances exist, but that's the case with any legal matter.

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:09am:

I don't believe that to be true. I think that you must be brainwashed to think of that as being the true case.

Irrespective of your belief system ( and you're perfectly entitled to maintain said belief system ), I have outlined in very simple terms, the base line in family law matters today.

Did you explain why men are required to work longer, irrespective of their earlier expected expiry date?

Actually, if you consider that I am blindly believing, then you should be able to properly debate and produce honest facts.

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:09am:

I don't believe that to be true. I think that you must be brainwashed to think of that as being the true case. The "true case" is that men were/are/will be the primary drivers of the economy and are controlled as such. Earlier death, later retirement age..it's obvious that men are primarily the chosen plebs to drive the economy.

You've edited your post (again), hence this reply.

You're crying poor me (again), hence this image.

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/demotivational-posters-babies1.jpg

So what price would you honestly place upon wiping a couple of snotty noses?

What price do you place on doing some washing, shopping, etc.?
I've done it for myself for years without a prob. It's easy peasy.
Then I have freedom and money to do whatever I choose.
Now I'm retired mid 40's, own everything I've worked for, including my retirement fund.

Why is it that the addition of a woman doesn't seem to procure such personal freedom?

Ok, I saw that last one.

No, I just like to add to my thoughts as any free man should without being labelled for doing so.
If you don't like it, then tough titty, I choose to work for my own freedom within this hypocritical "so-called" democracy.

Regarding this latest offering by you :


Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:28am:

Now I'm retired mid 40's, own everything I've worked for, including my retirement fund.

Have a read of this:

How to Die Young: Retire Early

In a study done by Shell Corporation a shocking discovery was made about the age of retirement when correlated with age of death. According to the article:

People who retire at 55 are 89% more likely to die in the 10 years after retirement than those who retire at 65.

Doesn’t that seem a bit backwards? So they found that the workers living to the age of 65 were 89% more likely to live 10 more years after retirement even though they were 10 years older than their early retirement counterparts. I find that to be completely shocking, I hope you would as well.

So what does this mean?

The only difference between the two groups was retirement from work. From this we could infer that work could be the reason we continue to live as long as we do because it gives us purpose. Many people who leave work aren’t really sure what to do with their days. I can relate as one of the worst months of my life was when I was unemployed, not because I didn’t know where money was coming from, but because I didn’t have anything to work towards. Even if you’re financially free at retirement, it doesn’t mean you’ll be living a fulfilling life.

Read more: http://www.moolanomy.com/2344/how-to-die-young-retire-early-ryan14/#ixzz1z6R8bbdI

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:28am:

So what price would you honestly place upon wiping a couple of snotty noses? What price do you place on doing some washing, shopping, etc.? I've done it for myself for years without a prob. It's easy peasy.

Is that what you sincerely think child bearing and child rearing is all about? If so, then you obviously have no idea about what you're talking about.

You also implied a few moments ago that you're past 40, which makes this discussion rather tragic. One usually finds that as we grow older we develop a keen sense of awareness. I cannot see much of this from your recent contributions. And I'm being honest.

Quote:

So what does this mean?

It means that I'm very sorry for these people.
I've seen them all over the place, I know them now as well. It ain't me.
I've known a workmate who won lotto twice and continued to work. It's a pity IMO.

The generally accepted goal is to work for the ambition of working forever (or until 67..same thing). That has never been my goal, and it is generally not the goal of 20yr olds with a life of ambition ahead of them.

The stats/article you provided, I believe to be true enough..unfortunately.

As you can see, once a person retires, they begin to deteriorate at a much faster rate than their equivalent cohorts.

One doesn't necessarily have to see proven scientific studies on this because it's factually evident all around us.

It's one reason (amongst many other reasons) why I'm not going to retire until MY BODY tells me to (not SOMEBODY ELSE).

Thank you for such an interesting chat. Good night.

Quote:

One usually finds that as we grow older we develop a keen sense of awareness. I cannot see much in the way of evidence (from your recent contributions in here). And I'm being honest.

That's fine with me.
You should see the daggers I get when announcing that I am unofficially retired from work  ;D It's quite hilarious, and somewhat comforting.

I states to me that I have at last attained my goal of enabling myself to attain my innate goals.
It's really relaxing and nice for the moment, but I need to keep up the guard, and I need to work bloody hard (in a relaxed state) to effect somewhere near my capabilities  ;)

I wonder how much of that is really true. Then again I've always been a woman who wonders about many things.

( hence my nic lol but shhhh let that remain just between you and me ).

Thanks again for the chat.

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 12:57am:

Quote: I don't know about any free tickets though. No one wins when a marriage breaks down ( except for the lawyers involved ). Crapola!! The woman who has generally never worked a hard day in her life takes half of the man's toil. QED. She then upgrades, and has normally already found her upgrade before ending the marriage. Capitalism has constructed it this way because it is generally the man who will do the bulk of the work for the economy. ..the man is then forced back to work until his "happy" retirement age of 67, when he is then generally lucky to be alive, let alone be able to enjoy the fruits of his capitalistic toil. In essence, it's a total life of slavery, without choice, without option for escape.

Bullshit

SOB

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:09am:

I don't believe that to be true. I think that you must be brainwashed to think of that as being the true case. The "true case" is that men were/are/will be the primary drivers of the economy and are controlled as such. Earlier death, later retirement age..it's obvious that men are primarily the chosen plebs to drive the economy.

Obviously you dont know anything about the world lil boy. Perhaps you better try getting married and an d have kids and then get divorced and find out - whats that you say no woman will have you with that attitude?

SOB

Yeah, well, Some play hard to get, I play hard to want  :D

Curiously (or maybe not so much so), for all our battles for freedom and democracy, our western societies aren't very interested in personal freedom of choice..unless it aligns with their particular version.

If Joe Bloggs jumps off a cliff, it doesn't mean that I need to in order to see that it's not for me.
I do have eyes, ears and a semi-functioning brain y'know.

Pic says it all

SOB

---

Far out - this guy is the very definition of hapless omega schlub.  Nothing new or unsuual about that in itself.  What is unusual is the proportion of males displaying these traits.

The saddest part to me, is that this was even reported.  With so many boys growing up without a father or other male role model, they can't help but take cues from the media.  Positive representations of masculinity in media are almost non existent.  They're going to grow up thinking supplicating ones self before a woman, on the off chance she may deign to let you kiss her feet is the key to a healthy, fulfilling relationship, and life in general. 

... wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

Far out - this guy is the very definition of hapless omega schlub.  Nothing new or unsuual about that. The saddest part to me, is that this was even reported.  With so many boys growing up without a father or other male role model, they can't help but take cues from the media.  Positive representations of masculinity in media are almost non existent.  They're going to grow up thinking supplicating ones self before a woman, on the off chance she may deign to let you kiss her feet is the key to a healthy, fulfilling relationship, and life in general.

Thing is - i dont know why its even newsworthy. I bet if a woman did it it wouldn't get on the news. the media is just trying to reinforce the stupid stereotypes.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 11:08am:

... wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 11:04am: Far out - this guy is the very definition of hapless omega schlub.  Nothing new or unsuual about that. The saddest part to me, is that this was even reported.  With so many boys growing up without a father or other male role model, they can't help but take cues from the media.  Positive representations of masculinity in media are almost non existent.  They're going to grow up thinking supplicating ones self before a woman, on the off chance she may deign to let you kiss her feet is the key to a healthy, fulfilling relationship, and life in general.  Thing is - i dont know why its even newsworthy. I bet if a woman did it it wouldn't get on the news. the media is just trying to reinforce the stupid stereotypes. SOB

No, they're doing the exact opposite of reinforcing stereotypes.  They're trying to create a new stereotype.

MissFixItOrElse wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:03am:

Amadd wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 12:57am: Quote: I don't know about any free tickets though. No one wins when a marriage breaks down ( except for the lawyers involved ). Crapola!! The woman who has generally never worked a hard day in her life takes half of the man's toil. QED. She then upgrades, and has normally already found her upgrade before ending the marriage. Capitalism has constructed it this way because it is generally the man who will do the bulk of the work for the economy. ..the man is then forced back to work until his "happy" retirement age of 67, when he is then generally lucky to be alive, let alone be able to enjoy the fruits of his capitalistic toil. You appear to be speaking from some particular, antiquated anecdotal perspective. These days, the contributions of BOTH parties just before entering the marriage as well as ALL contributions made during the marriage are carefully considered and weighed up. Future responsibilities as regards children and the cost of their care are also divided equally these days. Exceptional circumstances exist, but that's the case with any legal matter.

Yes, I agree with WW here. It is a quite fair system.
Some men let themselves down by violence, threats, alcohol ...... whereas most women "hold it together" better.

Very justly, if a man is threatening violence, taking drugs or drinking too much, the courts should protect the woman or children.

Quote:

You appear to be speaking from some particular, antiquated anecdotal perspective.

Nope, it was pure generalization.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

MissFixItOrElse wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:03am: Amadd wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 12:57am: Quote: I don't know about any free tickets though. No one wins when a marriage breaks down ( except for the lawyers involved ). Crapola!! The woman who has generally never worked a hard day in her life takes half of the man's toil. QED. She then upgrades, and has normally already found her upgrade before ending the marriage. Capitalism has constructed it this way because it is generally the man who will do the bulk of the work for the economy. ..the man is then forced back to work until his "happy" retirement age of 67, when he is then generally lucky to be alive, let alone be able to enjoy the fruits of his capitalistic toil. You appear to be speaking from some particular, antiquated anecdotal perspective. These days, the contributions of BOTH parties just before entering the marriage as well as ALL contributions made during the marriage are carefully considered and weighed up. Future responsibilities as regards children and the cost of their care are also divided equally these days. Exceptional circumstances exist, but that's the case with any legal matter. Yes, I agree with WW here. It is a quite fair system. Some men let themselves down by violence, threats, alcohol ...... whereas most women "hold it together" better. Very justly, if a man is threatening violence, taking drugs or drinking too much, the courts should protect the woman or children.

My mates going through a rough divorce ATM with a women who thinks exactly like the above, she wants the house, his super, maintenance & half his business.
She has even demanded the financials of his new girlfriend but is refusing to reciprocate with her new boyfriend's assets.
She will only allow access to his daughter every 2nd weekend & last holidays wouldn't allow him to see her at all.
Whats worse is there was no notice not even a phone call on the day he was supposed to pick her up at the park.
She then proceeded to make their 7 year old daughter lie to her father about her whereabouts, he knows this because he saw her when she was supposed to be somewhere else, she went bright red at seeing her father & admitted mummy made me tell you I was........

So Sprint I hope what you say is true, because his been to court once & they now must mediate (yeah right, she ain't giving nothing)


She had the affair, she asked him to leave, but has got all vindictive(you wouldn't believe some of the accusations) since he found a new women & some happiness instead of being a lonely suicidal wreck.
Luckly for him everyone that knew them as a couple has stayed with him whilst barring the over bearing witch, the most common thing he hears is "about time", we are all ready to walk onto the stand & tell the truth to support him, dispel her vindictive lies(child abuse, abandonment & threats against her) & hope the judge chucks her in the hole for perjury.

good luck to your friend smithy.

Due to other mens actions at such times, we are viewed quite suspicously, unfortunately.
That is not a legalistic thing, but a view based on what does happen at times.

If he so much as sneezes against his ex, it'll count against him.

it is a court based mediation, they are unconcerned with who left whom or unsubstantiated claims.

the less time in a court the better.

http://www.mends.com.au/ is very good.
they are not anti-women.

Quote:

Obviously you dont know anything about the world lil boy.

Well, I've traveled to many parts of the world and I've seen plenty of hardships.
IMO, our nation is fairly isolated despite our easy access to information and the people are increasingly becoming soft/spoiled/selfish.

I rarely mention (online or otherwise) how much I've donated to charity organizations over the years, because it's a personal choice and one shouldn't feel obligated to do so.
IMO, it's more of a personal enlightenment thing.

Hopefully I still have many years ahead of me as a free person, cut loose from the shackles of the blinkering daily grind, to search for more of those things which are personally satisfying to myself, not to you.

MissFixItOrElse wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 1:49am:

Amadd wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:28am: So what price would you honestly place upon wiping a couple of snotty noses? What price do you place on doing some washing, shopping, etc.? I've done it for myself for years without a prob. It's easy peasy. Is that what you sincerely think child bearing and child rearing is all about? If so, then you obviously have no idea about what you're talking about. You also implied a few moments ago that you're past 40, which makes this discussion rather tragic. One usually finds that as we grow older we develop a keen sense of awareness. I cannot see much of this from your recent contributions. And I'm being honest.

Anyone else agree with Amadd on the issue of child bearing and rearing? Is it as simple and "easy peasy" as he claims it is? Just wondering.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

MissFixItOrElse wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:03am: Amadd wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 12:57am: Quote: I don't know about any free tickets though. No one wins when a marriage breaks down ( except for the lawyers involved ). Crapola!! The woman who has generally never worked a hard day in her life takes half of the man's toil. QED. She then upgrades, and has normally already found her upgrade before ending the marriage. Capitalism has constructed it this way because it is generally the man who will do the bulk of the work for the economy. ..the man is then forced back to work until his "happy" retirement age of 67, when he is then generally lucky to be alive, let alone be able to enjoy the fruits of his capitalistic toil. You appear to be speaking from some particular, antiquated anecdotal perspective. These days, the contributions of BOTH parties just before entering the marriage as well as ALL contributions made during the marriage are carefully considered and weighed up. Future responsibilities as regards children and the cost of their care are also divided equally these days. Exceptional circumstances exist, but that's the case with any legal matter. Yes, I agree with WW here. It is a quite fair system. Some men let themselves down by violence, threats, alcohol ...... whereas most women "hold it together" better. Very justly, if a man is threatening violence, taking drugs or drinking too much, the courts should protect the woman or children.

Ah well said Sprintcyclist. And vice versa (if the woman is doing the threatening, taking drugs etc).

pretty much. I was main carer for my oldest son for a few years.  Pretty cruisy.
used to take him to the local play group, the ladies loved the cakes I made.

One of my mates lost his wife, he was only care giver for his kids for years. All went ok.

It's ........ constant work. certainly occupying.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 9:40pm:

One of my mates lost his wife, he was only care giver for his kids for years. All went ok. It's ........ constant work. certainly occupying.

I think your mate is a legend. Child bearing/rearing is the hardest job in the world. Going to work Monday to Friday is much easier (and saner). It's nice getting a few breaks during the day and seeing that salary directly deposited into your bank a/c each month.

Quote:

Child bearing/rearing is the hardest job in the world. Going to work Monday to Friday is much easier (and saner). It's nice getting a few breaks during the day and seeing that salary directly deposited into your bank a/c each month.

Speaking from your vast array of employment experience no doubt?

I've seen some pretty lousy parents in my time, and the kids can still manage to do well for themselves.

To class raising a child as a "mode of employment" is ridiculous.
You do it because you want to, not for monetary gain.
People generally go to work to get paid, not for the love of it.

Amadd wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 8:53am:

Quote: Child bearing/rearing is the hardest job in the world. Going to work Monday to Friday is much easier (and saner). It's nice getting a few breaks during the day and seeing that salary directly deposited into your bank a/c each month. Speaking from your vast array of employment experience no doubt? I've seen some pretty lousy parents in my time, and the kids can still manage to do well for themselves. To class raising a child as a "mode of employment" is ridiculous. You do it because you want to, not for monetary gain. People generally go to work to get paid, not for the love of it.

And what - pray tell - are nannies?

SOB

Quote:

And what - pray tell - are nannies?

What do you think they are?
People who get paid to help look after other people's kids.

What are grandparents?

Quote:

To class raising a child as a "mode of employment" is ridiculous.

Its a profession.

SOB

Ok, I should have clarified that to raising "your own" child.

Obviously a clarification was required.